GM News, New Models and Market Share

imidazol97 · January 2013

>What about the new Cadillac Volt? Will that be subsidized also?

It should be.

>remove the subsidy and let the free market decide the worth/value of these Volts.

Were you there demanding repeal of the $4000 (?) tax credit from the Fed and more from certain states IIRC on the Prius? That's what helped toyota, a perfectlly profitable company, launch itself as the maven of electric assisted vehicles. I can't recall any great protest against the US taxpayers subsidizing the Prius and other toyota/Honda products. There were few other companies with hybrids which were purchased at that time. It was the big push to toyota.

uplanderguy · January 2013

It wasn't the Corvair that influenced the Mustang...it was the Monza model which was the first time anyone had equated 'sporty' with 'compact', by adding deluxe vinyl trim, things like full wheel covers standard, bucket seats standard...both Monza and Mustang did those very things. The Mustang's creators admit that the Monza concept influenced them in the Mustang. I don't know why it's such a hard thing to accept for some folks here (not you, busiris).

Monza sales took off, and it's what saved the Corvair in the early years. Everyone in the industry knew that.

Mustang's sales performance at introduction time is legenday, which of course made Chevy take notice and make a sporty compact off of the chassis of its Falcon-like Chevy II. Ironically, the chassis of a Corvair Corsa was far more sporting than that of a Mustang or Camaro, as reviews of the day will verify. Still, the Mustang looked great, was cheap, had a huge options list, and could be had with increasing levels of V8 power, all things the Camaro cribbed two years later.

busiris · January 2013

Ironically, the chassis of a Corvair Corsa was far more sporting than that of a Mustang or Camaro

Maybe I dreamed this, or old age is catching up with my memory... But, I seem to recall a Corvair commercial in which they drove a Corvair up Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta...

I can't find any info on it, so I guess it was all a dream...

circlew · January 2013

No, the Malibu is not a terrible car. It's an ok car in a field with much better competition. I see continuing acceptance of mediocrity. Why is that ok? I never see an answer to this question.

The USA isn't going to excel by being mediocre.

You will never get an answer to GM's mediocrity being accepted by some :shades: .

Fact is GM is in the middle of rebuilding mode. Mediocrity is being fought with the new models such as the ATS/Vette. But in the case of the Malibu, ""GM-Disease" remains alive and well in the operational systems at GM. Let's see if the P/U Truck does better. The competition will either keep GM motivated or keep them mediocre.

The Malibus reputation as a toxic vehicle may have more to do with the botched launch rather than the Malibus merits as a vehicle. In that case, the fault lies with management rather than the Malibu itself.

Keep that competition coming. It's most welcomed, afaic!

But GM badly needs that new line-up. In its American home market, its share slipped from 19.6% to just 17.9% last year, the lowest since GMs rise to pre-eminence under the leadership of Alfred Sloan in the 1920s. Although its worldwide sales last year rose by 2.9% to 9.2m vehicles, its best since 2007, its global share slipped by 0.4 points to 11.5%. It looks like being deposed as number one carmaker by a resurgent Toyota, with an expected 9.7m sales. And it is feeling the hot sausage-breath of Germanys Volkswagen on its neck: VWs relentless drive to become world leader took it to just under 9.1m sales.

Regards,
OW

uplanderguy · January 2013

Can you confirm or not, that "North American Truck of the Year" must be a vehicle which is currently available for sale?

BTW, recent VW's have had a lot of problems if you read around. To be fair, I don't know anyone who owns one, but at some point I believe that will 'catch up to them'.

uplanderguy · January 2013

I'm not a fan of the uber-Corvette with black wheels, red brake hardware, etc., but I like the 'lesser' Sting Ray model (and I wasn't even a fan of the original Sting Ray). I could still see the wife and me getting one in ten years from now and doing the stereotypical Route 66 trip and other road trips in contemporary comfort in one. It'd have to be not red, not white, not silver, not yellow, and not black, so not sure what that would leave us.;)

Anyway...since we were discussing emblems a week or two ago...I will say right here....I dislike the "Sting Ray" (stingray?) emblem on the car. It took me a minute or two to actually realize what it was.

I'd rather have had a small, discreet nameplate that said "Sting Ray" than this:

http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/v/main/auto-shows/2013-detroit-auto- -show/chevrolet/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingra- y-emblem.jpg.html

Almost looks like an electric guitar!

I can put up with that for the rest of the car, though.

CR says Corvette has one of the absolute highest owner satisfaction rates of anything out there...behind the Volt, though.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Can you confirm or not, that "North American Truck of the Year" must be a vehicle which is currently available for sale?

Answered my own question, circlew. From their website:

"The awards are given yearly after a months-long selection process by jurors. The award, and a back-to-back test session each fall at Hell, Mich., are paid for by jurors' dues."

So the new GM trucks weren't considered. It's no surprise that the several-year-old truck design didn't win.

berri · January 2013

I think you're beating a dead horse Uplander. This argument is apparently as divisive as Washington politics! I grew up watching all of this and still agree with you about Monza, which was then replicated by GM with Nova and some of the other division compacts. I can buy some of busiris' comment about VW if you consider the Karmann Ghia, but it was a much more understated approach. The big question I have in all of this is why GM was two years late to the pony party? Did they think they could accomplish a similar feat with existing vehicle lines for less money than a separate product line, or were they afraid a separate Camaro line would cannibalize too many other division vehicle sales, as well as possibly nibbling at high margin Corvette volume, or something else? To me at least, that's the more interesting question in all of this.

uplanderguy · January 2013

You're right about the dead horse, berri. The guys responsible for the Mustang admit it, and the, ahem, experts here can't buy into it!

In answer to your question...and even as a kid, more so than now, I absorbed everything I could about Chevrolet... I think GM thought of themselves as the inventers and innovators, and others copied them, not the other way around. Ford caught them off-guard with the Mustang, right around the time Nader's book came out too, hurting Corvair sales not long after the gorgeous (IMHO) and very improved '65 models came out.

On a Cub Scout trip, I went to Lordstown, OH when they were building Camaros and Firebirds there in '68. Great memory. I also remember seeing on Youngstown TV (we lived in PA 25 or so miles away, thankfully!) when they phased Firebird production into the plant in the spring of '67.

I used to not like the '67-69 Camaro styling very much. The '67 has grown quite a bit on me though, over the years...simpler and rounder than the '69 which I know is a lot of people's favorite.

ateixeira · January 2013

I was about to mention the same thing.

Early on, hybrids and even TDi diesels had incentives early on. Ford capitalized big time. And VW. And Toyota.

Today hybrids are widespread. Diesels sales have also grown. Both after the incentives expired.

So it worked, actually.

tlong · January 2013

Fact is GM is in the middle of rebuilding mode. Mediocrity is being fought with the new models such as the ATS/Vette. But in the case of the Malibu, ""GM-Disease" remains alive and well in the operational systems at GM. Let's see if the P/U Truck does better. The competition will either keep GM motivated or keep them mediocre.

That's why the Malibu is so important. GM's weakest areas have been midsized and small sedans. The Cruze is at least a decent try, although reliability is still not great. The Malibu is "ok". If GM wants the world to believe it has changed, then a good Volt or ATS or SUV is nice, but the real change would be them building excellent CARS for today's mainstream market, not only the large barge market.

tlong · January 2013

The big question I have in all of this is why GM was two years late to the pony party?

... and why was GM years late to the small sportser party (Miata > Sky, Solstice)
... and why was GM years late to the retro panel van party (PT Cruiser > HHR)
... and why was GM years late resurrecting the sporty coupe (new Mustang > Camaro)
... and why was GM years late with modern OHC engines?
... and why was GM years late with hybrids?

Those are just the ones that come to me quickly.

I would have thought a "market leader" would innovate like one. Being big, fat, and complacent is never good - unless you are Wagoner.

circlew · January 2013

Can you confirm or not, that "North American Truck of the Year" must be a vehicle which is currently available for sale?

No. It doesn't matter. It must be eligible according to these criteria:

The winners were chosen by a jury of 49 automotive journalists from the United States and Canada.

The awards  now in their 20th year - are unique in the United States because instead of being given by a single media outlet they are awarded by a group of automotive journalists from the United States and Canada who represent magazines, television, radio, newspapers and web sites.

To be eligible a vehicle must be all new or substantially changed. The jurors considered dozens of new vehicles before sending their ballots to Michelle Collins, a partner at Deloitte & Touche early in December.

The awards are designed to recognize the most outstanding new vehicles of the year. These vehicles are benchmarks in their segments based on factors including innovation, comfort, design, safety, handling, driver satisfaction and value for the dollar.

They are administered by an organizing committee and are funded with dues paid by the jurors. There are no paid positions. Automakers do not pay to have their vehicles considered or to use the awards in ads.

GM trucks are not the most outstanding vehicles despite being "refreshed"..errr "All New".

Regards,
OW

circlew · January 2013

GM trucks are not the most outstanding vehicles despite being "refreshed"..errr "All New".

Correction. The 2014 Silverado/Sierra was not released in time to make the long list. It will be on the 2014 list for NACTOY voting.

Regards,
OW

bpizzuti · January 2013

... the genesis of small car design in the domestic auto companies. Chrysler discovered they couldn't build small cars to save their lives. So instead they are letting Fiat, a reasonably successful company in Europe, design them instead. Unfortunately Fiat failed in the United States previously , and some of their designs still aren't playing well here.

Ford, upon discovery that they couldn't design a compact that didn't blow up, bought a stake in Mazda, a reasonably successful Japanese company, and had them take over designing Fords small cars. Ford also took the time to internalize some lessons, and now actually knows how to design their own small cars.

GM, upon realizing their small cars sucked, promptly forgot. They ended up with a stake in Subaru, and used it to source a compact... for Saab. Then they sold the Subaru stake without any further real technology gain. And at some point they bought a failed Korean car manufacturer, which couldn't make cars anyone liked anywhere, and had them take over GM small car design.

It's a miracle the Cruze and Sonic are as good as they are.

stever · January 2013

Ford Fiestas back in the 80s ran great. Daewoos not so much, Geos had a better reputation.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Remember the "Aspire"? Being a wisea**, I used to joke about the one I'd see in the parking lot at work, 'what, does one 'aspire' to move up to an Escort next time?!".

andre1969 · January 2013

To be eligible a vehicle must be all new or substantially changed. The jurors considered dozens of new vehicles before sending their ballots to Michelle Collins, a partner at Deloitte & Touche early in December.

Using that criteria, I have to wonder why the 2013 Ram won out? It's not a new body, as its design came out in 2009. And the 3.6 V-6 is not a new engine, as it came out for 2011, although this is its first use in the Ram.

Still, I guess the Ram is more substantially changed for the 2013 model year than Ford, Chevy/GMC, Nissan, or Toyota.

Way back in 1972, there was so much "non-new" on the automotive scene that Motortrend gave their car of the year award to the Citroen SM! I think the only new domestic design in '72 was the Torino/Montego, and there was nothing spectacular about them, although they did sell well enough initially to put a scare on GM.

ateixeira · January 2013

Ram evolved slowly, coils, then engine, then 8 speed trans. Continuous improvement. They earned it over time.

ateixeira · January 2013

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1081738_2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray-conv- ertible-leaked-already

bpizzuti · January 2013

Remember the "Aspire"? Being a wisea**, I used to joke about the one I'd see in the parking lot at work, 'what, does one 'aspire' to move up to an Escort next time?!".

Great way to illustrate the difference. The Aspire was a Kia. The Escort was largely a Mazda, or at least influenced by it. Which would you rather have had then? Heck, which would you rather have now?

And would anyone choose a Daewoo over a Kia, Mazda, or Subaru? Or even a Corvair? :shades:

Personally I think GM should have hung on to Subaru and taken much more advantage of their small car knowledge, but because Subaru drivetrains are so unique I can see that being difficult. But then again, they never learned much from their deals with Toyota either. GM managed to GET things like the Prizm and Vibe to sell, but I wonder how many small-car design lessons they got from those, since they were rebadged Toyotas rather than true collaborations like the Ford Escort and Focus.

xrunner2 · January 2013

But then again, they never learned much from their deals with Toyota either. GM managed to GET things like the Prizm and Vibe to sell, but I wonder how many small-car design lessons they got from those, since they were rebadged Toyotas rather than true collaborations like the Ford Escort and Focusus.

So, GM had to collaborate with Toyota to bring a decent compact to market. Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic have been benchmark cars for many years that other manufacturers try to emulate. Do not believe that GM has ever had small cars that others have tried to copy and bring to market. Only a long string of failures such as Chevette, Vega, Cavalier, Cobalt. The early years of Saturn were miserable tries at trying to compete with Civic. All of these models have been banished to the GM grave yard probably never to be used again.

Of course GM has been very successful with pickup trucks and big SUVs. Small cars, mid size cars, not so much.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Early Saturns had envious owner loyalty and were sold at a no-dicker price. GM watered that formula down, sadly, but I think, yet again, to call the early Saturns a failure is misinformed.

And you can call the Cavalier a failure, but they built it for 24 model years, during which it was usually in the top ten models sold.

There are a lot of good automotive history books out there to read, you know.

xrunner2 · January 2013

Let's see. The early Saturns had plastic doors so that parking lot dings were avoided. How many other car manufacturers followed that design. Wasn't color matching of plastic doors to the rest of the car a problem.

Early Saturns had inferior engines and transmissions compared to Honda Civics. Saturn lagged in other attributes as well.

Bottom line is that Saturn was supposed to be GM's answer to building small cars to compete with benchmark small cars such as Honda Civic. The Honda Civic is still around after many years, might have burped in last year or two, but Saturn is dead. A failure by GM.

uplanderguy · January 2013

GM used that body shell design on the dustbuster vans and Camaros and Firebirds, and they absolutely, positively have held paint better--not to mention that they don't rust--decades later than other old cars I see here in the rusty northeast.

But you're the expert.

They also resisted hail damage. I wish I were so lucky when we had both my Cobalt and old van in Rochester, NY during a hail storm.

I wish I could buy a vehicle with that body construction now.

That Saturn is gone isn't a reflection on the quality of those early Saturns, but it is a reflection of GM having more divisions in North American than everybody else.

xrunner2 · January 2013

That Saturn is gone isn't a reflection on the quality of those early Saturns, but it is a reflection of GM having more divisions in North American than everybody else.

Face up to it. Saturn was a failure. It's gone. One of many failures by GM. Saturn is one of many reasons why GM went bankrupt.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Never worked for GM, and no one in my family has. I just am astounded by such sweeping generalizations on here, that's all...one after another after another. As a simple contrast, Toyota wins the recall crown year in and year out, settles a humongous class-action lawsuit, and all I hear from you is crickets chirping.

bpizzuti · January 2013

And yet Toyota having recalls (some of which are voluntary and the responsible thing to do in order to fix customer issues BTW) does not excuse GM's mistakes in car design and business management, do they? Why do they have so many divisions? What niche does each one fill, and do they do so cleanly and logically? Why did they release a Malibu with so little rear legroom, something which I've seen you mention...very softly, I might add.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Got a flyer in the mail yesterday. $500 'customer cash' on the '13 Malibu LS or $189/mo. lease; $500 'customer cash' on '13 Cruze LS "with automatic transmission" or $149/mo. lease; and $500 'customer cash' or $259/mo. lease on '13 Traverse.

I still don't like Traverse's quarter-window cut, but the new grille is a great improvement IMHO.

Trucks: 2013 Silverado 1500 LT 4WD Ext. Cab "All Star Edition", $4,000 'customer cash', $1,500 option package discount, $1,000 trade-in cash when you trade in an 'eligible vehicle' and $1,000 owner loyalty cash, for a "$7,500 total value".

Except for the trucks, none of the others sound all that great of an offer to me.

uplanderguy · January 2013

As I've said here many times...I've never seen a single mention of the rear-seat legroom in a new Malibu...before I posted it myself right here.

If I ever saw an honest discussion of other brands like I'm able to give GM products--I post what I like and what I don't like, but I don't see others doing that here about their favorite makes, or if they do, it's extremely rare in comparison, obviously to any regular readers here--that is what is so exhausting and energy-sapping to me about this forum. I'm thinking I'll hang out where I'm far less frustrated...probably to many's 'yeas'.

circlew · January 2013

Using that criteria, I have to wonder why the 2013 Ram won out? It's not a new body, as its design came out in 2009. And the 3.6 V-6 is not a new engine, as it came out for 2011, although this is its first use in the Ram.

It was the only P/U on the long list being considered. I assumed (wrongly) it went head to head with Ford and GM but not so.

2013 North American Truck/Utility Long List

Acura RDX
Audi Allroad
BMW X1
Ford Escape
Ford C-Max
Hyundai Santa Fe
Infiniti JX 35
Mazda CX-5
Mercedes GL-Class
Mercedes GLK-Class
Mercedes G-Class
Nissan Pathfinder
Ram 1500
Subaru SV Crosstrek
Toyota RAV4 EV

Regards,
OW

fintail · January 2013

How many of those are actual trucks? GLK? X1? Pathfinder minivan? Electric RAV4? Allroad is just a station wagon :confuse:

circlew · January 2013

As a simple contrast, Toyota wins the recall crown year in and year out, settles a humongous class-action lawsuit, and all I hear from you is crickets chirping.

Silence is approval.

Toyota got GM disease. The "bigger you are", the "more infected you get". Remeber, GM was the former King of Recalls, just like they were the former World Sales Leader.

Just like no response to your quality reference to VW. Agree their quality was way below GM. They can only improve from there! :lemon:

Regards,
OW

busiris · January 2013

So, GM had to collaborate with Toyota to bring a decent compact to market. Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic have been benchmark cars for many years that other manufacturers try to emulate. Do not believe that GM has ever had small cars that others have tried to copy and bring to market. Only a long string of failures such as Chevette, Vega, Cavalier, Cobalt. The early years of Saturn were miserable tries at trying to compete with Civic. All of these models have been banished to the GM grave yard probably never to be used again.

I guess it depends on how one defines failure.

In Vega's case, the product that rolled out the door failed, but the manufacturing process that was originally designed to make the car didn't. Many aspects of it were adopted by other manufacturers, mostly foreign makes.

Unfortunately, GM saw small cars as small profits, and completely gutted the manufacturing process by every cost-saving measure possible, which doomed the Vega.

circlew · January 2013

Agreed. They need to categorize much better, afaic!

Regards,
OW

fintail · January 2013

I remember the big Saturn issue was panel gaps. You could drive a Saturn through some of them. The first generation Saturn was pretty decent and had a big following. Second one toned it down, and was bought by by those who don't like cars. The Ion generation - well, I won't say anything. Co-worker's wife received a new Saturn L sedan at college graduation, they held onto it for about 7 years - apparently it was problematic for most of its life. Replaced it with a Kia.

xrunner2 · January 2013

In Vega's case, the product that rolled out the door failed, but the manufacturing process that was originally designed to make the car didn't. Many aspects of it were adopted by other manufacturers, mostly foreign makes.

A company uses a good process but makes a lousy product. Not relevant when talking about the merits of the product. Customers buy a product for its features, quality/reliability, value, etc and could care less about the processes used to make the product.

xrunner2 · January 2013

I remember the big Saturn issue was panel gaps.

Auto testers from the major U.S. car magazines were in consensus about the Saturn vs the benchmark Civic. Saturn was mediocre, got bad marks for its engine. No where near as refined as that from the Honda.

bpizzuti · January 2013

In Vega's case, the product that rolled out the door failed, but the manufacturing process that was originally designed to make the car didn't. Many aspects of it were adopted by other manufacturers, mostly foreign makes.

I'd call that failure, particularly if they didn't make any money licensing the new manufacturing process. And why didn't they use the process to make a GOOD car instead of the Vega?

tlong · January 2013

I'm thinking I'll hang out where I'm far less frustrated...probably to many's 'yeas'.

There's the GM Fans forum....

berri · January 2013

I actually had a Saturn as a rental some years back (ironically while my car was in for repairs at a Ford dealership that used Enterprise). I recall it drove like the other smaller GM offerings at the time, but was louder. I wonder if GM learned anything from that manufacturing process with plastic panels that may help them in the future moving over to composites? The biggest thing Saturn showed me was that GM leadership didn't really have control of their company. Managers and workers weren't really following what top GM leadership wanted to do. GM really needs a Mulally, but then Ford is in the unusual position of having that family in firm control. Right now, it seems like Ackerson is getting frustrated trying to change culture and accountability, so all that really happens is leadership musical chairs.

tlong · January 2013

If I ever saw an honest discussion of other brands like I'm able to give GM products--I post what I like and what I don't like, but I don't see others doing that here about their favorite makes, or if they do, it's extremely rare in comparison, obviously to any regular readers here--that is what is so exhausting and energy-sapping to me about this forum.

I'm astonished at your statement. This is a GM forum. That's the primary topic. We wouldn't generally start a new topic with "I love the Camry" or "I love the Fusion". We might mention those brands to compare and contrast, but the primary topic is GM so we need to stay primarily on that topic.

I can tell you that I don't particularly like Toyota and although I admire their consistent reliability over the years, I think they dropped the ball and deserve all their negative press. I really like Mazda in many ways, and also Honda although I also think they've lost their way. I really love the driving of cars like Audi and I love the looks of many Mercedes, but I'm not going to start those topics here, right? I mean, really. I'm coming here to talk about GM, so I don't see why it is so surprising that there is not a "balanced" discussion of all the different things we like and don't like.

Perhaps you should start a topic thats something like "a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of various car makes" so that you can see a more balanced picture.

andre1969 · January 2013

I don't know if they were inspired by GM, but for a few years, Chrysler used plastic front fenders on the Intrepid, Concorde, and New Yorker/LHS. Unfortunately, they tended to warp. They'd also shatter in an accident, but I don't know if that's really that much of a disadvantage, as a metal fender will still get smashed.

GM also used plastic front fenders on some of their full-sized FWD cars in the 90's, and I think they had better success than Chrysler.

One other problem with Saturn, in doing the whole body in plastic like that, was that they had to build them with some monstrous panel gaps, to allow for the swelling and contraction with temperature changes. People didn't gripe quite as much about fit and finish 20 years ago, but nowadays, whenever I see an old S-series on the road, those huge gaps really draw attention to themselves.

Admittedly though, one thing that makes them look bad is that newer cars have tighter, more even gaps than your typical car of 20 or so years ago.

busiris · January 2013

A company uses a good process but makes a lousy product. Not relevant when talking about the merits of the product. Customers buy a product for its features, quality/reliability, value, etc and could care less about the processes used to make the product.

I think you missed my point....

The manufacturing processed GM designed for making the Vega was never used... The cost cutters gutted it before production ever started, which is why the Vega was a car that held so much promise, yet ended up as one of history's worst made vehicles.

The original process would have ensured a quality product, and many of its components were adapted by foreign makes, which resulted in the quality, reliability and value you mentioned in your comment. So, in the end, the manufacturing process matters quite a bit...

fintail · January 2013

Was anything back then even close to a 4cyl Honda? Those engines were whisper quiet, yet revvy and powerful enough to make them good performers for the era. I don't think any maker could have approached the Civic, especially by 1992.

fintail · January 2013

I think when the Ion was released, with weird design and middling build quality, GM was already ready to start abandoning the brand. They certainly put in a half baked effort there.

I do believe there is still some toxic personnel in the GM leadership hierarchy.

busiris · January 2013

I don't know if they were inspired by GM, but for a few years, Chrysler used plastic front fenders on the Intrepid, Concorde, and New Yorker/LHS. Unfortunately, they tended to warp. They'd also shatter in an accident, but I don't know if that's really that much of a disadvantage, as a metal fender will still get smashed.

BMW uses some form of composite/plastic fenders on many models. My 2010 328i has non-metallic front fenders. I don't know what, if any others use non-metallic parts.

busiris · January 2013

I'd call that failure, particularly if they didn't make any money licensing the new manufacturing process. And why didn't they use the process to make a GOOD car instead of the Vega?

I'm not sure exactly what can or can't be licensed in a manufacturing process when it comes down to how a line is laid out, but its pretty clear the implementation was an absolute failure as far as the Vega was concerned.

It demonstrated that GM at least had some folks that understood the importance of quality at the time, but were simply outnumbered/overshadowed by those that didn't.

Edit: go here for a good background on the Vega and its manufacturing process:

http://www.carlustblog.com/2010/12/the-chevrolet-vega-what-went-wrong.html

busiris · January 2013

I think when the Ion was released, with weird design and middling build quality, GM was already ready to start abandoning the brand. They certainly put in a half baked effort there.

I agree with your design comment, especially the dash layout...

bpizzuti · January 2013

Not so much abandoning the brand, as abandoning the concept of Saturn in particular. GM "abandons" brands only under threat of bankruptcy it seems. What they did do is turn Saturn into "just another GM nameplate." Which might actually have been worse, since they damaged said brand in doing so.

GM News, New Models and Market Share

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles